Organizing A Windows Server 2008 Deployment

[JORGEMAL]

I will be installing a new server which has a RAID controller with 4 1TB hard disks. I have thought about using at least 2 partitions, a C: logical drive for Windows Server 2008 and a D: logical drive for database and other applications like an email server. Is this an advisable approach? What would be a good practice?

 

With respect,

Jorge Maldonado

[ICTCity]

Hi.

 

4 disks means you can use different types of raid:

 

RAID 0+1 = 1800 GB usable

RAID 5 = 2800 usable

RAID 1 + RAID 1 (2 disks + 2 disks) = 1000 GB + 1000GB

 

Said that, I assume they are 10k disks.

 

Depending on what you want to do, creating 2 partitions is not the best idea. On you C:\ drive you will have Windows & programs, do you really need 1000 GB?!?! This can be taken as example:

 

FIRST RAID 1 --> part #1 = 300 GB - Windows / Programs

--> part #2 = XX GB (I don't know how much do you need) - E-mail and documents

--> part #3 = XX GB (if you still have some space...) - Backup

 

SECOND RAID 1 --> part #1 = XX GB - Database

--> part #2 = XX GB - Backup / other

 

if not you can use a RAID 5 in a similar way, with the first solution you will have better performance because of the 4 disks are separated in 2 groups of 2. No matter if you plan to use exchange and SQL or others software... both e-mail and database are DATABASES and use disk... it's a good idea to keep them separately.

 

If you need help... I'm here :)

[JORGEMAL]

I appreciate your response ICTCity. The 4 disks are connected to the same RAID controller and I was told that I have to use them all in a single configuration (this is for the case where you suggest 2 RAID 1). The server has a Dell PERC 5i RAID Controller. I will be storing the following in our server which will be an Internet server, it will host a web application:

 

1. Windows Server 2008

2. Email server

3. Database server

4. Web application

 

I read somewhere that RAID 1 was the best choice for a web app, is this correct?

Please let me know your point of view so I can take the best decision.

 

Regards,

Jorge Maldonado

[ICTCity]

And why you have to use as a single disk? Even on single raid controller you can have different config...

 

Well if you must use the single configuration switch to raid 5.

 

if not... Well actually is the same. The different between raid 1 and 5 is not only in the raid itself. The most important thing are the spindle of your disk, the more you have, the faster they are.

[JORGEMAL]

And why you have to use as a single disk? Even on single raid controller you can have different config...

 

Well if you must use the single configuration switch to raid 5.

 

if not... Well actually is the same. The different between raid 1 and 5 is not only in the raid itself. The most important thing are the spindle of your disk, the more you have, the faster they are.

 

 

Thanks again for replying ICTCity.

 

For what you say above, I understand that, even if there is only one RAID controller, I can have 2 RAID configurations so I suppose that Windows Server 2008 would take care of RAID config. Is this correct? I guess my problem is that I think that the RAID controller is the one that takes care of RAID config.

 

It is a great idea to use 2 disks for a RAID and 2 disks for another RAID because I would have 2TB of total available space. This way, I can use drive C: for applications only: OS, Email server, Database Server, our Web App; and drive D: for the our web app database information, the email server database information, and so on. Does this sound as a good configuration?

 

Best regards.

[ICTCity]

Don't confuse things.

 

Windows server COULD do RAID but if you can, DON'T do a software raid! It's sloooow, really slow. Use your raid controller. This will be configured after the POST and before the Windows installation. I don't want to believe that your controller cannot manage 2 differents RAID. Today I have installed a server with 3 RAID on a HP which is really old (7 years) so...

 

Said that, once you are able to configure your controller, install windows on first RAID and once ready to install create just one partition for WINDOWS (let's say 200 gb) you can adjust this value based on your needs. Once installed, create others partitions (mail, db, webApp) so you will have 4 parts on your FIRST hard drive. Having multiple partitions has (no) drawbacks, but has advantages (one is that when you want to move something maybe on a storage in the future, you can do this easier than with a single confused partition), another advantage... let's say that something screw up your C:\ partition. You have an image of 1 month ago, with a single partition you must restore the image and THEN recover the database backup (and if you don't know... recovery a database no matter if it's sql, mysql, ... it's a BEAUTIFUL job... do it one time for test... you will see when partials records are not recovered... or tables weren't close... beautiful...), so finally you spent one day to recover the system and people cannot work.

With multiple partitions you must restore the old image and windows starts up and the DB file is up to date. You (maybe) must do just some adjustment on your "old" windows.

In the worst case you can simply reinstall a fresh windows server (30-40 mins?) and install your DB software but data is still available! Just a quick thing, if you use shared storage (san, nas) you can map each partition on a host of your choice so you really have a great no-downtime! (Almost :P)

Back to you, you have your part (windows), now you can create the others partitions based on your needs.

 

Finally you have the second RAID ready to "host" your web app database. Also in this case... if you have a db which is 100 gb create a partition of 200 or 250 gb but DON'T use the entire disk. It's EASIER to grow a partition instead of stretch it. Trust me :P With windows you can expand partitions but not stretch.

 

 

I wrote too much? mhhh maybe :P

[JORGEMAL]

The informaton you are posting is of great value for me. In fact, the more you write, the better. Now I have a much better idea about orginizing space in a server. I will undoubtedly write again in case I have more questions and I will gladly expect you to write as much as possible.

 

Thank you very much.

[JORGEMAL]

One more question ICTCity.

According to your experience, what would be the minimun partition size for Windows Server 2008 installation?

I have been thinking about 100GB at least considering updates. Such a partition will be completely dedicated to the OS.

 

Regards,

Jorge Maldonado

[ICTCity]

The MINIMUM required is 40GB but of course this is not optimal.

 

Well depends on many factors, updates occupe space but there are also others things that do the same (file paging, log files). A normal windows installation with normal utilization (File Server, SQL, Exchange, ...) require not more than 100 GB because USUALLY you have the DB or files on another partition. If you use terminal server or application server you should consider the grow factor which usually is between 20-40%.

 

In others words 100gb is enough :)

[JORGEMAL]

Is there a special consideration if the server will be used primarily as a web server?

 

Regards.

[ICTCity]

Not really, in a webserver, for security reasons, you have the website folder in another disk, not where windows resides. So the space will be occupated on another disk not your C:\